The Portland daily press., 1887-09-02
NEW hAMPsHIRE's FIGHT.
Her Legislators WagIng Fierce War
over the Railroads.
Mr.. Stone Says the Hazen Bill Assas-
sinates the Colby,
And that the Boston and Lowell Road
Is a Beautiful Corpse.


regular order of business this morning.
Mr.. Stone of Laconia was the first speaker.
He said he understood that 1t was proposed
under the pending motion to fully consider
the merits Of both the Hazen and Atherton
bills. III felt some embarrassment in UNDER
taking to discuss the bills in view Of the thor
ough manner in which the subjects had been
SO fully considered before the committee He
believed the members intended to do as
seemed to them best for the general interest
OF the State in the final determination Of the
matter. Measures not men should be consid-
cred and personality had nothing whatever
to do with a settlement of this controversy.
1t seemed to be paramount argument Of the
Hazen bill that 1t was to perfect the idea and
policy of the Colby bill. Was such the fact?
II not, their argument failed. They must
make that appear affirmatively to sustain
their position. To ascertain what was the
true intent Of the passage Of the Colby bill
1t was necessary to go back to 1883. to enquire.
In May, 1888, at the annual meeting Of the
Manchester and Lawrence road II was voted
expedient to unite all the railroads in the
Merrimack valley into one system. Similar
action was taken at the meetings Of the Bos-
Concord railroads the same month. This
was before the legislature assembled that
passed the "COlby" and there could be no
doubt that all these lines intended to consoli-
date or unite into one system. The speaker
was member of the railroad committee In
1883, and counsel for the Boston, Concord
and Montreal railroad. Hon. Daniel Bar
nard, the present attorney general Of the
State, said that the purpose. of the bill was to
allow the lines in Merrimack valley to unite
| and form one corporation. No gentlemen
| appeared before that committee who even
intimated that there was any other objection
to passing the Colby" bill than to permit
union Of the Montreal, Northern and Con-
cord In Merrimack valley and union of the
Boston and Maine and Eastern. Even dis
| cussion in the legislature showed that such
was the only object Had It been under
$40 stood that the Colby bill all railroads in
Boston and Maine or Concord, that measure
would not have received twenty votes Did
not the facts cited show that the Hazen bill
did not carry out the Colby" bill? The
strikes dagger at its heart. IF the "Colby"
| bill was in the interest Of the Boston and
Lowell why did its counsel appear before
the railroad committee in 1883 and oppose its
| passage on the ground that the bill allowed
| Concord, Northern and Montreal in Merri-
| mack valley and the Boston and Maine and
| Eastern to unite and thus shut out the Bos-
| ton and Lowell from this State? Why did
tuCy uSuk tudt Dlll III IL was IN tne interest OIL
the Lowell as they understood it?
The Colby" bill became a law and the
Lowell jumped the Concord and leased the
upper roads. That is the way it got into
New Hampshire. Can 1t be said on these
| facts that the Lowell came here in good
| faith and took roads under bill vigorously
| opposed by 1t? In the fact Of protest fled
Dy ,. ii. DOW and other stockholders against
lease OF the Northern to the Lowell before
the latter expended dollar, could 1t be said
Il tlaf fnd in fott
Lowell fought the lease but the court de-
clared the law under which it was made un-
constitutional. That action Of the Lowell
was sharp, but good faith had no part in it.
The Boston d Lowell is dead, and only came
| to New Hampshire as beautiful CORPSE To
allow members to look upon il to see how
handsome was the original That line has
| Deen leased TO the Boston & Maine, and now
Boston & Lowell, but the Boston & Maine.
IL was not good logic or reason to say that
because the Lowell had given the people
good service, or the Montreal & Northern.
that the Maine would, and that that was suf-
hcient cause for passing the Hazen bill No
public exigency has been cited TO show why
the HaZen bill should become law
fassing TO the consideration Of the Ather-
ton Oil the speaker said; II ask you to
ject Of the Colby bill That measure per-
mitted union of the Concord and Boston.
| Concord IL Montreal The Montreal was
emphatically New Hampshire road, repre-
sennng the muscle, bone and sinew of the
people. Ihe termini OF its lines were pros
porous, but the road itself was poor and
| needed one million to be laid out on ii with
In flve years. The Concord road was pros
| porous and the Aterton bill proposed
to have the surplus earnings Of
the Concord devoted to building up the
Montreal. Every foot Of both roads was in
stee SeM hdaIp haddmpslnire, li and majority of the
Boston q Maine and a majority of its offi-
GERS belong In Massachusetts, and they can
not have the same interest in the Montreal
as the 9, Concord e especially Il the latter is
duce fares on the Montreal 20 per cent. and
nearly the same on the Northern. Isn't that
in the interest Of the public? The amended
Atherton bill provides that the Northern
road can be leased to the new line for three
years at per cent on its capital stock. I'm
ger the present lease, the Northern stock
holders receive but per cent for the first
Ten years. II that line was leased under the
Atherton bill us stockholders would save in
the ten years 100000. That is strong rea
son for passing the Atherton bill. Cannot
this State create road that will give her
| road?"
| The speaker believed il could. The talk
that Concord had no terminal was of no con-
sequence, because ample terminal facilities
could be secured in Boston for all the busi-
ness sent there.
| What" said he, do you suppose the peo-
| pie Of New York would say II persons
| should go there and seek to secure the con-
troll of her railroad and water power the
same as those from Massachusetts do here"
| He referred to the Legislature of 1916 by
| which control of the water in Lake Win
nepiseogee was given to a Massachusetts
corporation, and said when he thought of
that unfortunate step he could not favor the
| bill.
| :, In leasing the Montreal to the Lowell.
there was provision against letting without
the consent of the directors. Despite that
fact, the Lowell undertook to lease the Mon
| treal to the Maine, and had actually deliver
| ed It under lease recently made How was
that for good faith? The Lowell did not
| come. and had not been in New Hampshire
in good faith. The real question at issue
was whether by passing the Hazen bill the
| legislature would ratify the lease of the
| Northern and Montreal to the Lowell, SO II
| could pass them over to the Boston & Maine
| for 90 years, or adopt the Atherton bill and
| thereby continue the policy Of the Colby
| bill.
| At this point the House adjourned.